The Bullet:

Industrial Finishing Services, a metal coating company, has been cited for air quality and hazardous waste violations at its facility in Perham. The company had been emitting hazardous air pollutants in quantities larger than allowed by its permit and had also begun construction on a new expansion before receiving a required MPCA permit. IFS has agreed to changes that will bring the facility into compliance with regulations and will pay a $60,000 civil penalty.  View the MPCA News Release.

Who:

Industrial Finishing Services (IFS), a metal coating company.

MPCA, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is authorized to manage the hazardous waste program of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in the State of Minnesota.

What:

Alleged violations include:

• Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in excess of the facility’s permit thresholds.
• Failure to install and operate a thermal oxidizer to control the emissions of hazardous air pollutants associated with the company’s coatings.
• Failure to apply in a timely manner for a different category of air permit due to increasing levels of air emissions; should have applied in 2009 but did not do so until 2014.
• Begun construction on a new expansion before receiving a required MPCA permit.
• Issues with the RCRA Contingency Plan and emergency response planning.
• Initial (within 6 months) and annual training of Facility Personnel.
• Use of a non-licensed site for hazardous waste disposal.
• Pollution risks posed by hazardous waste at the facility.

The company has agreed to changes that will bring the facility into compliance with air pollution and hazardous waste regulations. Many of the corrective actions have been completed. The company has also agreed to pay a $60,000 civil penalty.

Where:

Industrial Finishing Services (IFS) facility subject to these violations is located in Perham, MN.

When:

Initial MPCA inspection conducted Fall of 2013.  News release dated July 3, 2014.

Why:

The mission of the MPCA is to protect and improve the environment and enhance human health

How:

In Minnesota, the MPCA has the authority to create and enforce its own state-specific hazardous waste regulations as long as they are at least as strict and as broad as those of the USEPA.

Conclusion:

The proper management of hazardous waste requires awareness of both Federal and State regulations.  Failure to comply can result in significant fines and penalties.  Consider the cost of my Onsite Training versus a civil penalty such as this.  Once you do, please contact me for a free training consultation.

A Totally Enclosed Treatment Facility, sometimes referred to as a Totally Enclosed Treatment Unit, is an exclusion in the RCRA regulations available to generators of hazardous waste.  It allows a generator to conduct on-site treatment (definition below) of its hazardous waste without being subject to the RCRA permitting requirements of 40 CFR Parts 264 or 265; the exclusions are found in §264.1(g)(5) and §265.1(c)(9), respectively.  Further, if the hazardous waste is managed immediately upon generation in a Totally Enclosed Treatment Facility and the treated effluent is a non-hazardous waste, then the waste is not subject to RCRA regulations from its point of generation and does not count toward the facility’s generator status [§ 261.5(c)(2)].  Though it sounds enticing, “So long, Large Quantity Generator status!” the scope of the TETF exclusion is very limited; the purpose of this article is to explain the definition of a Totally Enclosed Treatment Facility for hazardous waste.

(more…)

The Bullet:

US EPA announced the conclusions of enforcement actions against two hazardous waste generators in California’s San Joaquin Valley.  Fines paid by the two facilities total $75,200.  Read the US EPA press release:  U.S. EPA settles with two San Joaquin Valley companies to ensure safe handling of hazardous waste

Who:

WCR, Inc., a heat exchanger refurbishing facility.

B.C. Laboratories, Inc., a company that provides environmental testing services for commercial and government clients.

US Environmental Protection Agency – Region 9.  Media Contact: Nahal Mogharabi, 213-244-1815, mogharabi.nahal@epa.gov

What:

Alleged violations of WCR, Inc.:

• Failure to properly label and close hazardous waste containers.
• Failure to maintain a hazardous waste container in good condition, leading to minor leaks.
• Failure to minimize the possibility of unplanned releases by storing the leaking container in an outdoor, uncovered area.
• Failure to conduct required weekly inspections.

WCR has agreed to pay $34,600 to resolve these violations.

Alleged violations of B.C. Laboratories:

• Failure to properly label and close hazardous waste containers.
• Failure to provide adequate aisle space to allow unobstructed access by personnel and inspectors.
• Failure to submit a biennial hazardous waste report.
• Not following proper practices, posing a greater risk of hazardous waste releases into the environment.

B.C. Laboratories has agreed to pay $40,600 to resolve these violations.

Where:

WCR, Inc. is located in Fresno, CA

B.C. Laboratories, Inc. is located in Bakersfield, CA.

When:

WCR, Inc. was inspected by US EPA in March 2013.

B.C. Laboratories, Inc. was inspected by EPA in November 2012.

News release dated June 26, 2014

Why:

“Facilities that deal with hazardous waste are responsible for its safe storage and handling,” said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “It’s vital to protect employees and nearby communities from the risks of accidental leaks and releases of harmful waste products.”

How:

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authorizes EPA to oversee the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. Under RCRA, hazardous waste must be stored, handled and disposed of using measures that safeguard public health and the environment.

Conclusion:

In this situation the US EPA brought this enforcement action against the two California businesses and not the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA).  Whatever the enforcement agency (State or Federal), the RCRA regulations will be enforced.  I can provide the training you need to comply with both State (California’s hazardous waste regulations are more strict and more broad than those of the US EPA) and Federal regulations.

Contact me for a free training consultation.

For more information on the Region’s 2011-2014 Strategic Plan for the San Joaquin Valley, please visit: www.epa.gov/region9/strategicplan/sanjoaquin.html

The Bullet:

A chemical distribution facility in Roanoke, Va was ordered by an administrative law judge to pay a $612,339 penalty for multiple violations of federal and state hazardous waste storage regulations.

Who:

United States Environmental Agency (USEPA) issued the violations.

Chem-Solv, Inc. is the operator of the facility.

Austin Holdings-VA, L.L.C. is the facility owner.

What:

Alleged violations include:

• Storing hazardous waste in an open tank that did not have an engineering assessment or air emission controls.
• Storing hazardous waste for greater than 90 days without a permit.
• Failure to perform daily inspections of hazardous waste tanks.
• Failure to perform hazardous waste determinations on the wastes in the open tank, aerosol waste, and other wastes generated at the facility.
• Open hazardous waste tank had been improperly removed, without compliance with a RCRA closure plan.

The companies have a right to appeal the decision to EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board.

Where:

Chem-Solv, Inc. is located in Roanoke, VA

Austin Holdings-VA, L.L.C. is the facility owner.

When:

Judge’s opinion issued June 5, 2014

News release dated June 24, 2014

Why:

Violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), such as these are alleged, can threaten public health and the environment and require costly cleanups through improper storage and disposal of hazardous waste.  The enforcement of RCRA regulations by the USEPA can eliminate these threats.

How:

Despite the fact that Virginia has an authorized hazardous waste program (I find it interesting that there is no mention of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality in this release) and that the alleged violations include violations of State regulations, the USEPA is the primary investigation and enforcement agency for this case.

Conclusion:

Though not mentioned as an alleged violation, I would not be surprised to find that this facility has not completed the required training for Hazardous Waste Personnel.  High-quality Hazardous Waste Personnel training such as mine would have provided the information necessary to prevent the alleged violations. Contact me to provide this training or to answer any questions you may have about the RCRA regulations of the USEPA or your State.

View the press release:  Virginia Chemical Distributor to Pay $612,339 for Violations of Hazardous Waste Storage Regulations

Contact Information: Donna Heron 215-814-5113 / heron.donna@epa.gov

The Judge’s decision is available at: http://www.epa.gov/aljhomep/orders/2014/RCRA-03-2011-0068_Chemsolv_14-06-05_ID_Biro.pdf

The Bullet:

The DNREC issued an NOV (Notice of Violation) to a commercial composting company based on information it provided in its quarterly report and an inspection of the site.  Potential violations  include exceeding the facility’s limits for on-site storage of yard and wood waste and the presence of plastic bags at the site.

Who:

DNREC – Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (Delaware) – Solid & Hazardous Waste Program

Wilmington Organic Recycling Center is the location of alleged violations.

Peninsula Compost Company, LLC is the Owner/Operator of site.

What:

Alleged violations documented on the NOV:

1. Quarterly report showed that the storage limits for yard and wood waste overs exceeded the storage limits established in the BUD.  A Beneficial Use Project Determination, or BUD, establishes the limits within which a composting facility such as this must operate.
2. Acceptance of prohibited waste – non-compostable plastic bags.
3. Plastic continues to be abundant throughout Peninsula’s composting process with minimal effort to eliminate the contamination.
4. Prohibited waste, especially plastic residual waste from the screening process, was stored on the ground with no enclosure.

Where:

Peninsula Compost Company, LLC and the Wilmington Organic Recycling Center are both located in Wilmington, DE

When:

Violations were noted on May 5, 2014.

Enforcement action served June 26, 2014.

Why:

Though facilities such as this are not subject to the high level of regulation as a hazardous waste TSDF, they still must comply with State and Federal regulations designed to protect the environment.  It seems clear from the alleged violations of this NOV, that the presence of plastic in composted material is a concern of the DNREC.

How:

Under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) the management of solid waste that is not a hazardous waste is primarily the responsibility of the State and not the US EPA.  Delaware exercised this authority to ensure the protection of the environment and the related health and safety of its citizens.

Conclusion:

It’s not only violations of the hazardous waste regulations that can result in NOVs and fines.  If you ship your non-hazardous waste to a facility such as this, be sure to perform an audit of its operations to determine if it is compliance with State and/or Federal regulations.

Contact me if you have any questions about the management of hazardous or non-hazardous waste.

The MPCA completed 68 enforcement cases in 41 Minnesota counties during just the second quarter of 2014 (April-June).  The civil penalties collected due to these violations exceed $735,000.  The MPCA has 107 environmental enforcement investigations that are ongoing and may yet lead to additional civil penalties.

A complete list of all enforcement actions can be found on the agency’s web site at www.pca.state.mn.us.

The following is a brief summary of all 68 cases completed during the second quarter of 2014:

•  Greenheck Fan Corp., dba Innovent Air Handling Equipment LLC, Minneapolis, for air quality violations, $365,000 (this includes $315,000 toward a supplemental environmental project)
• Industrial Finishing Services, Perham, for air quality violations, $60,000
• Twin Ports Excavating LP, Duluth, for stormwater violations, $53,000 (all to be spent on a supplemental environmental project)
• Two Harbors WWTP, Two Harbors, for water quality violations, $19,000
• La Roche’s, Inc., Faribault, for subsurface sewage treatment systems violations, $14,000
• Gold’n Plum Farms LLC, Sauk Rapids, for air quality violations, $10,000
• Whistling Valley Development WWTP, Lake Elmo, for water quality violations, $10,000
• Norway Beach, Cass Lake, for water quality violations, $8,413
• Schriever Farm LLC, Harmony, for feedlot violations, $6,500
• Vincent & Nancy Hajek property, Glenville, for solid and hazardous waste violations, $6,500
• Stussy Construction, Inc., Mantorville, for stormwater violations, $5,795
• A&F Consulting Group, Winona, for asbestos violations, $5,775
• Sleep Inn Marshall LLC, Marshall, for stormwater violations, $5,700
• Geo’s Paint & Finish LLC, Brainerd, for hazardous waste violations, $5,688
• 528 Partnership LLP, St. Paul, for stormwater violations, $5,600
• Aaron Carlson Corporation, Minneapolis, for hazardous waste violations, $5,500
• Steven Mogard, dba Royal Flush Sanitation S&P, Ortonville, for subsurface sewage treatment systems violations, $5,400
• Hedstrom Lumber Co., Inc., Grand Marais, for air quality violations, $5,050
• Burns Excavating, Inc., Medina, for stormwater violations, $4,850
• Rich Demeules, Medina, for stormwater violations, $4,850
• Albany Recycling Center LLC, Albany, for stormwater violations, $4,700
• Clearwater Paving, Bemidji, for stormwater violations, $4,700
• NuCrane Manufacturing, Hutchinson, for stormwater violations, $4,700
• Consolidated Construction Co., Inc., Marshall, for stormwater violations, $4,300
• Westman Freightliner, Mankato, for stormwater violations, $4,200
• Arrowhead Recycling Center, Two Harbors, for stormwater violations, $4,150
• Castle Danger Demolition Landfill, Two Harbors, for stormwater violations, $4,150
• AW Kuettel and Sons, Inc., Duluth, for stormwater violations, $4,083.75
• Fosston WWTP, Fosston, for water quality violations, $4,019
• Sam’s Well Drilling, Inc., Kevin Sorge property, Austin, for water quality violations, $4,000
• BH Heselton Demolition Landfill, Faribault, for stormwater violations, $3,900
• Cedar Lake Engineering, Inc., Maple Lake, for stormwater violations, $3,900
• Concast, Inc., Zumbrota, for stormwater violations, $3,900
• Innova Industries, Inc., Fergus Falls, for stormwater violations, $3,900
• PaR Nuclear, Shoreview, for stormwater violations, $3,900
• Pepsi Beverages Co., Burnsville, for stormwater violations, $3,900
• Scott Equipment Co., New Prague, for stormwater violations, $3,900
• Silgan Containers Mfg. Corp., Savage, for stormwater violations, $3,900
• Viracon, Inc., Owatonna, for air quality violations, $3,700
• Otter Tail Power Co., Hoot Lake Plant, Fergus Falls, for water quality violations, $3,550
• Gerdau Ameristeel US, Inc., St. Paul, for air quality violations, $3,500
• Prinsco, Inc., Prinsburg, for stormwater violations, $3,400
• L&S Construction, Springfield, for stormwater violations, $3,000
• Zufall Pit, Owatonna, for stormwater violations, $2,854
• Allen & Joey Greibrok, Austin, for asbestos violations, $2,750
• Automotive Concepts, New Hope, for air quality violations, $2,700
• Avon Body Shop, Avon, for air quality violations, $2,500
• Red Wing Cabinetry, Red Wing, for air quality violations, $2,025
• Brad Moe, Chanhassen, for stormwater violations, 1,900
• Cans R Us, Inc., Little Falls, for subsurface sewage treatment system violations, $1,800
• Lake City WWTP, Lake City, for water quality violations, $1,775
• St. Francis Medical Center, Breckenridge, for air quality violations, $1,688
• ISD 676-Badger Public Schools, Badger, for air quality violations, $1,688
• Lundin Construction-NM, Cromwell, for air quality violations, $1,688
• Marcom Service, Inc., New Hope, for air quality violations, $1,688
• Rajala Mill Company, Bigfork, for air quality violations, $1,688
• Spring Prairie Hutterite Colony WWTP, Hawley, for water quality violations, $1,625
• Kaufman Container, Minneapolis, for air quality violations, $1,563
• Eugene Holst, Austin, for water quality violations, $1,500
• Judy Marshal & Susan Kehret, c/o Patricia Woodfill, Brownsdale, for water quality violations, $1,500
• Daniel Weaver, dba Earth Science Soil Testing, North Branch, for subsurface sewage treatment system violations, $1,150
• Vreeman Construction, Raymond, for solid and hazardous waste violations, $1,150
• Gaines Auto Salvage, dba Bridley’s Auto Salvage, Glenville, for stormwater violations, $1,150
• Superior Truck Auto & Marine, Minnesota City, for air quality violations, $810
• Ripley’s Inc., Erhard, for subsurface sewage treatment system violations, $660
• Nick Schmitz, North Branch, for subsurface sewage treatment system violations, $625
• State Bank of Easton, Wells, for asbestos violations, $500
• Judy Machining, Inc., Goodview, for air quality violations, $500

Don’t despair businesses of the Gopher State!  Imposing monetary penalties is only part of the MPCA’s enforcement process.  Agency staff will provide assistance, support, and information on the steps and tools necessary to achieve compliance for any company or local government that requests it.

A complete summary of environmental enforcement actions and news releases can be found on the MPCA’s News Media Center Web page.  For questions on specific enforcement cases, please contact Stephen Mikkelson, Information Officer at (218) 316-3887, or toll free at (800) 657-3864.

The Bullet:

DTSC alleges that FedEx Ground committed more than 1,500 acts resulting in multiple violations of California hazardous waste regulations.  These acts took place at each of FedEx’s thirty-one terminals throughout California.  Alleged violations stem from improper management of broken or leaking packages that contained hazardous materials.  If proven, the violations subject FedEx to civil penalties of up to $25,000/violation.

View the DTSC news release:  DTSC files complaint against FedEx Ground:  Company allegedly mishandled hazardous materials shipped in California

Who:

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is one Department within the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA).  The DTSC manages the hazardous waste program within the state of California.

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (FedEx Ground) is a nationwide Carrier of materials & articles (hazardous & non-hazardous).  In this instance, it is also the Generator of a solid waste.

 What:

Alleged violations include:

• Improper – or absent – hazardous waste determination.
• Unlawful transportation of hazardous waste.
• Transportation of hazardous waste without the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest.
• Failure to obtain hazardous waste generator identification numbers.
• Did not send hazardous waste to authorized hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
• Did not use proper hazardous waste labels and markings on the container.

Where:

Civil complaint filed in Sacramento County.  Violations are alleged to have taken place at FedEx’s thirty-one (31) terminals within California.

When:

News release:  June 26, 2014.

According to the news release, the alleged violations have occurred, “since at least November 2008”.

Why:

The improper management of hazardous waste can lead to the pollution of the environment and jeopardize human health and safety.  DTSC regulates hazardous waste within California to ensure it is managed in a way to minimize its impact on the environment.

How:

As a state with an authorized hazardous waste program, Cal EPA – and DTSC – can create and enforce its own regulations as long as they are at least as strict and broad as those of the USEPA.

Conclusion:

What conclusions can be drawn from this?  Number one, that significant fines and violations can accumulate from a relatively simple lack of awareness of being subject to the regulations.  Pursuant to 40 CFR 262.11 (Federal regulations but adopted by all the states) a generator of any solid waste must determine if it is a hazardous waste.  This is known as the Hazardous Waste Determination.  Simply being aware of this requirement as a starting point could have avoided a significant problem for FedEx Ground in California.

Secondly, despite popular misconceptions, big well-known companies make simple – and costly – mistakes like this all the time.  You as the Generator of a hazardous waste and/or the Shipper of a hazardous material cannot rely on other big-name companies to ensure your compliance.  Their mistakes could cost you!

So what’s the answer?  Training.

If you generate – or even have the potential to generate – any hazardous waste, then someone at your facility must be aware of the applicable regulations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  But more than that, someone must be familiar with the regulations of your state, since, as in this case, the regulations of a state (California) can be much more strict and more broad than those of the USEPA.

I provide that training.  Whether you choose to attend one of my nationwide & year-round Training Seminars, schedule a site-specific Onsite Training, participate in a convenient and inexpensive Webinar Training, or a combination of all three; I’ve can provide you with the training you need to avoid costly fines and penalties.

Please contact me for a free training consultation.

[slideshare id=37164196&doc=40cfr261-140720001035-phpapp02]

As a state with its own hazardous waste program, authorized by the US EPA under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Colorado may make its hazardous waste regulations more strict and more broad than the Federal rule.  Colorado has done this in regards to its regulation of the Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) status for hazardous waste.  The purpose of this article is to explain the state-specific regulations of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) applicable to a CESQG.

(more…)

[slideshare id=36646302&doc=40cfr261-140704233456-phpapp02]